If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Take a look When editing out images from infoboxes (e.g. here), the Commons Delinker leaves caption information that appears in the infobox implying that there is an image. You may want to resolve this. If you would like to respond to me, please do so on my talk on the English Wikipedia. Koavf (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to change the template, so it can handle an empty image parameter. Cheers! Siebrand 11:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the template is already handling the problem by showing parts of the tag that would not display if the image were present. The purpose is to highlight to the editor, Zariane, that the edit was not complete: s/he has left behind some information which suggests an image should be here. Editors are supposed to take a glance at the results of their edits. The problem in this case is human error, and the software is doing its best to point it out. --99.226.159.95 02:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we no longer track protected templates through that template since there was recently a huge increase in template namespace protection. As an alternative we use the more informative {{permprot}} on talk pages to inform users on how to make {{editprotected}} requests. And since many of the templates which contain the now (somewhat) deprecated template are heavily used, removing them has been a gradual process. Rocket000 (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. I notice that you have uploaded a new image and at the same time replaced an older one. I think you should know that this is only allowed when the two images are almost exactly alike. Here in Commons we would like to host as many different, useful versions as possible for Wikimedia projects to choose from. I have restored your image to an older version, but I hope you will upload your fine image with another name. Thank you, and happy editing! Cecil (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, had not seen your post on my page. You have changed several images in a way not intended by the original author without a consens, even going so far as creating duplicates, since for one of them your version was already on Commons under a different name. You also removed text of an official picture made by the CIA. If you don't like their descriptions tell them, but don't just counterfeit it (people would think it was made that way by CIA while in fact in wasn't) and then upload the file in a really bad quality too. -- Cecil (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures like File:Octahedron.png are fine as they are. They are raytraced renderings of a 3D model and as such very difficult—if not impossible—to faithfully represent as SVG. It may be possible, sure, but takes a huge amount of work and isn't really necessary, especially considering that the source image is of fairly high resolution already. Note, however, that images such as File:Tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb2.png are fine to tag with {{SVG}} since they are easily representable in their entirety as a vector graphic and are likely to benefit from such a representation (the latter isn't really the case for realistic renders of 3D objects). —Johannes Rössel (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Saint John Will-I-Am Coltrane.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

It is really not constructive or productive to overwrite one of these images with another, so that there are only three different maps... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- a decision has been arrived at more or less by consensus that the simplest name "File:Flag-map of Western Sahara.svg" should not endorse the claims of one side or the other, and you trying to change this situation is distinctly unconstructive and unproductive, and pointing to the "original version" changes absolutely nothing. AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are greatly mistaken -- the UN map has been in place since "06:10, 5 May 2011". I really don't understand why you have taken it upon yourself to create controversy and stir up trouble where there was none recently... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I quote your own words on that point: "it's in use on Wikimedia projects--just changing its contents here changes what displays there"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, fine (if both Fry1989 and myself are on the same side of an issue -- something which happens rather rarely -- then maybe that's a sign that there's some merit to that position )... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Justin Anthony, you are a file mover and recently moved some files.

While on Wikipedia this is not such an issue, at Wikimedia Commons, you have to be very careful. This includes updating the redirects pointing to the file and to replace all its usage globally. Otherwise there is a chance that other articles look damaged/broken (also because MediaWiki, the server software currently has issues with new created file redirects).

I herby ask you to please take care of these tasks in future. You can do this manually using Special:GlobalUsage and Special:WhatLinksHere or you use the service of User:CommonsDelinker/commands (just add the commands to its talk page) or, much easier, you use Move & Replace which will care about all the tasks while moving but requires JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Thanks I didn't think about usage outside of Commons... What about other wikis that use Commons files? There's an extension for that on MediaWiki--would I have to go off-site to fix those problems? Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We usually care for all Wikimedia wikis but we don't see usage outside the cluster, thus don't update other wikis. This is BTW why file redirects created during moving should work (but currently they don't) and they of course must be updated while moving (Move & Replace also takes care of this task). -- Rillke(q?) 19:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please undo your removal of the category "images with borders" I have added to videos with borders. There is no alternate category, and the videos are usually cropped when they are in this one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that the right term to use? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Videos Probably... You could have Category:Media with borders as a container (although it seems unnecessary, as audio can't have a border) and then images and videos inside. Commons doesn't host any other kinds of media, so those are really your only options. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, what could be another parent category then? In a sense, videos are images, a series of images. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Files with borders That works. Videos aren't images that move anymore than they're audio with stuff to see. Either way, if you want to create this, feel free and if you want me to create it, that's fine, too. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can make a cat, but never made a templpate before. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cat and template Just copy and paste the text from the one template and swap out the relevant words (and note what you did in the edit summary!)--again, I can do this if you'd like or show you how to do it step-by-step. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯

Parent I meant that Media... would be a parent category that would include Images... and Video... But, as you pointed out, there will only ever be two subcategories, so a container may not really be necessary. If you need/want any help with any of this, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't clear that it was WP:OR/Neogologis for that wall. It obviously applies to barriers/walls/etc. in Israel where hundreds of WP:RS use the phrase, but in working on the relevant Wikipedia article I found no sources that do so for the Moroccan wall, or just about anything else, except usually in a pejorative fashion. Therefore that Moroccan Wall does not belong in Category:Separation barriers. Carolmooredc (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Pejoratives are not inherently incorrect or inaccurate: many (most?) references to the Israeli separation fence/barrier/wall with the West Bank is frequently referred to in pejorative terms. The problem is whether or not it is accurate to call the Moroccan berm a "separation barrier". I'm curious as to why you think it's not, as it serves as the dividing line between occupied Western Sahara and the SADR-controlled Free Zone. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, did some research and I see aside from obvious nonsense (categorizing a frog as a horse for example), Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/12#No_Original_Research original research is not applied quite the same way. So people will have to go to the article to find out that no neutral WP:RS calls the Moroccan Wall a separation barrier. Carolmooredc (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Israeli advocacy organizations trying to apply "separation barrier" to every wall or fence every built to condone their own controversial use of such a wall would not be considered reliable in most article and/or the POV would have to be identified as not to mislead readers. Carolmooredc (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources' I'm confused: are you saying that this source is not reliable when it comes to claims about Western Sahara? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In a wikipedia article it would have to be identified so that its biases would be obvious. Wiki commons has a much lower standard. Carolmooredc (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Standards If that's the case, then doesn't that make it easier to rely on it for categorization? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the point I was making in second posting; after investigating further I saw that Commons is not that restrictive with references and about "original research" and doesn't even require refs except in unusual cases or, it seems, for drawing maps, graphs, etc. from sources that are copyrighted. Avoiding such copyright restrictions being one of the main reasons. Common sense seems to rule. Carolmooredc (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I then traveled over to “Wiki, Women and Museums” which to my dismay featured discussions of Israeli museums. I have a feeling most Israeli museums distort history to justify Israel’s land grabbing expansionist policies, human rights abuses, aggressive Israel lobbies in a number of countries, etc. I always say that Palestinians are the only people who are lied about more than women. Don’t get me started. I was on my best behavior and only wore a low key “fashion kefiyah” around my waist.

Why is AnonIp ‎68.6.227.26 adding barely relevant material about women (pregnant or not) disguising themselves as suicide bombers, except to once again blame Palestinians for all the malnutrition and deaths of their children? This is wikipedia, not the Israeli Defense Forces website. I reverted the first occasion where you inserted material in the middle of of sourced info, in a very POV way that interferred with proper referencing. And then you added similar opinions from an American politician? Not very WP:RS. I wish I had time to clean this article up and properly balance it with indoctrination of Israeli children into historical inaccuracies, hatred and supremacy. When I have time to clean it up I will and then take it to a noticeboard where NPOV editors will surely agree with the way the article is being abused. A properly ref'd and placed mention of the Israeli excuses for these deaths might be permitted but both of these were just offensive.

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato(talk) 07:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)